A $2 billion allocation intended to push universal broadband service into rural areas of the United States has been cut from President Obama's economic stimulus package, according to Gizmodo:

Those jokers down in Washington finally compromised on the economic stimulus bill, with the Republican minority succeeding in cutting out huge swathes of spending. Among the casualties is the $2 billion for universal broadband...

Sorry, "real America," you're gonna keep getting screwed.

GP: Support for the Obama stimulus package is largely split along party lines. However you feel about the stimulus bill, universal broadband would be a big win for gamers in areas with poor quality Internet access.

If people actually cared about their fellow humans, they'd be out there doing charity work and donating lots of money to good causes. Instead, people choose to cop out and make the government do it so they don't feel guilty about not doing anything but also don't have to take any personal responsiblity.

I didn't realize we needed nearly a trillion dollars to 'give a damn' about our fellow man. Hell, even fact check admits that this bill is full of enough pork to make a jewish congressman leave the room.

From what I've heard his economic stimulus package is bunk anyway. One of the 'jobs' it's supposed to open is resodding the national mall.

That is not a permanent nor useful job. It brings in no money, they might as well just give everyone on social security a raise (Which, btw, we'll see with a democrat majority.)

Where's the stuff to encourage MMORPG development? WoW alone brings in over one billion dollars anually. Why aren't we giving tax breaks to silicone fabrication plants? Is there even a scholarship fund in there to encourage people to get a higher education? I sure as hell haven't heard of it.

Why is more money going to our uneducated? Why aren't we creating lasting and profitable jobs? There should be an in depth analysis of what educated workers we need, and grants for the scholarships for these jobs.

Screw universal broadband, we need to strike down exclusive line leasing laws and let there be competition between ISPs. You ever wonder why there's always only one cable and one phone company in an area? There's a reason for it. It's the same reason we don't already have true high speed fiber ran up to every house.

Shh!!! You're ruining the joy of the stimulus plan! You're not supposed to think about it; you're just supposed to believe that the government money-fairy will spread around magically-acquired wealth and make everything better!

Besides, why should people want to get higher education when they can just get the government to take money from people who got higher education and give it to them anyway? Until we stop encouraging people to be lazy and/or irresponsible, we're not going to change anything. But, since nobody wants to be told that he has to go out and actually do something and/or change himself to fix problems, we'll just vote for people who promise Hope and Change and then see if they can fix things for us.

If people had taken time to look at Barack, they probably would have realized what crap his promises are (not that McCain's were any better or anything; they're both politicians). He's made too many big promises, and now he has to come through or face some really harsh criticism when people begin to realize he's not the superhuman they think they elected.

If the people want change, they have to change themselves and stop being part of a culture of over-entertained, materialist idiots that tries to make everything the federal government's responsibility. Our founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves seeing all the power we're giving to the federal government.

Despite what people want to think, this is actually the best thing for gamers in regards to Universal Broadband. Sure, people want to push this through as quickly as possible, but that is a guaranteed way to have the supporters of Universal Broadband have it blow up in their face.

If you want Universal Broadband to actualy be godo for gamers you should want it to have its own forum and discussion. What does Universal Broadband really mean? A line within an accesible distance from each house. Does that get you anything decent? Does it guarantee the same service as urban areas? Or are we talking about broadband that is useless for gamers? Barely pushing 1mb/s down and 128kb/s up, maximum download caps, etc. The service providers will put those things in place to guarantee they aren't losing a ton of money.

No, if you truly support Universal Broadband you need it to be out and in the open so everyone can actually see what is being pushed. Push it through as buried pork now and find yourselves having all new debates after the lines are laid trying to get legislation passed to make the service equal to what is found within city limits. Or you can let this go now and work on the authoring a proper bill dedicated to Universal Broadband that will actually guarantee all the things you think it means and won't be filled with loopholes.

There you go, free advice on how to make Universal Broadband actually work from a guy who is opposed to the entire idea on principal.

I was happy to see that in some cities in TN, the electric power company offers DSL/Cable to homes. One of my friends is running on a 10D/4U Mb/s fiber optic line from them. I was amazed at how little his bill was. There is no reason to rush through Government Spending, people dont seem to realize it is coming out of your pocket and if we do decide on Universal Broadband I want it done right.

Thinking things through isn't one of the strong points of American politics. We prefer to rush half-baked plans into bills while the intial excitement of the idea is still fresh and then spend years trying to fix the problems instead of spending a year or two researching and thinking the bill through to get most of the problems out of the way before we pass it. Basically, we leap and then look to see what we're going to hit at the bottom of the cliff. It's not smart, but it gives us something to waste time bickering about and passing blame for later on.

I wonder why there isn't broadband in these underserved areas? Oh...that's right because there isn't a market large enough to be profitable. I guarantee that companies have already done a cost benefit analysis of bringing broadband to these areas and the answer they got was that demand wasn't high enough.

"A Pew study found that 14 percent of today's dial-up and non-Internet users say they don't subscribe to broadband because it is not available where they live. But far more - 51 percent - say they are just not interested."

So now these companies that are saddled with providing service to these areas lose money. They spread those losses across the business and we all lose. Either the company’s ability to grow and innovate is hurt or we end up bailing them out with our tax dollars.

Now let’s talk about these jobs that will be created. What happens when the stimulus money (our money) stops being paid out to do these infrastructure jobs. Do you think these jobs will stay around? Probably not

So now we have the same number of people out of a job and companies are losing money which will probably end up in more jobs lost. Yep, sounds like a good solid plan to me.

"A Pew study found that 14 percent of today's dial-up and non-Internet users say they don't subscribe to broadband because it is not available where they live. But far more - 51 percent - say they are just not interested."

That doesn't really tell us anything about whether or not it would be profitable. Since the underserved areas are the thinly populated ones, it should come as no surprise that most people who don't have broadband don't have it for reasons unrelated to availability - since the percentages are of the total number of non-broadband users, most of whom probably live in more densely populated areas (I mean, that's sorta what "densely populated" means).

You're probably right that the reason they don't already have broadband available is that the ISPs don't think it's worth the trouble to invest in the infrastructure. However, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be profitable to supply internet services if the infrastructure were already in place. IOW, the government can build the infrastructure for reasons unrelated to turning a profit on selling internet access (namely, stimulating the economy and increasing internet coverage), and the ISPs can do what they do without having to spend a lot of money up front on the infrastructure.

I'm still pissed that stimulus package is even actually being looked at. It's a great way to waste nearly a trillion dollars and create no new jobs, put money into things that'll help no one, and best of all, encourage socialism.

You're right, Milwaukee needs 16.6 million dollars for schools, even though they have fifteen schools that are UNUSED. We also need to blow money on roads and bridges (many of which don't even need the work), that will create jobs. Oh wait, no it won't, it'll go to the same contractors and the same lazy teamsters the government has always used. The same people who take 2 years to fix the plumbing for a half mile stretch of road.

Some other things we need? Green Education. Oh yeah, they don't teach that bullshit enough in schools yet. How about Green Projects? Ooh, speaking of green, we need to build tennis courts in New York City's poshest neighborhoods. Let's spend billions giving money and benefits to people who didn't contribute taxes in the first place. Never mind that the money isn't going to things that are actually needed, like a new prison for Cincinnati.

LMAO, do you know the type of reform that is needed to improve the nations power grid to prevent a blackout like what happened on the East Coast a couple of years ago? Or that happens from time to time out west? It alone is enough to keep Scientists/Lawmakers/Businesses busy for a couple of years just to start thinking about a plan. Until each states energy grid is independent of each other that cannot be prevented, and will not be prevented, by solar energy alone.

Stuff like that has no place in a "Bail Out" or "Financial Crisis" Bill, it will just lead to horrible waste.

The massive socialism, the idiotic nanny-state policies, the lack of freedoms every other state except for Wisconsin has (althought some cities don't have 2nd amendment rights), the massive government spending, the fact that a grocery bagger makes 35 dollars an hour, all sorts of things.

Really. That's funny. I kind of threw it out the window right at the word "socialism."

Well, that's not necessarily true. Nanny-state, that I do have to say, I'm against. But so far, that doesn't say much, as it doesn't sound really like Communism to me. To be perfectly honest, though, the only reason I'm not railing that hard on it is I like to use a certain deragotory phrase myself. I think it'd be a bit hypocritical of me if I continued further.

Also, California wants all it's money it has to pay to the govermanet to support your state back. As we have to pay the most compared to any state and we get the least back. So, I'll like to see how you would fare if Califorina ever decides to secede from the rest of the states. Also, no Califorina made video games or movies for you either. Otherwise, if you are enjoying anything from Commiefornia as you so lovingly put it: You are damn hypocrite.

I don't believe for a damn minute that California (A state of on the verge of bankruptcy) pays the most of any state to the federal government on anything except income tax (and when you give grocery baggers 35 dollars an hour to cover the 'ridiculous expense' of living, its not hard to see why.) Have you looked at the moronic spending in your state? No? Then you should pull your head out of your ass and look around.

Also, just because your state sucks doesn't mean I can't play its videogames. Russia sucks too, but I still play games from the old Soviet Republic and its satelite states.

Have fun living in the state with the least freedoms, the most hippies and jackasses, and some of the worst pollution in the country.

I also live in the Milwaukee Area, and for having one of the "Best Public School Systems in America", there is a lot of waste. The original system I want to say was done so that schools were always within walking distance of the people they were to service. The conditions of the schools varies mostly based on bad/lack of maintenance. The solution has been to bus people out to the suburbs. The same solution was done for public housing, move it to the suburbs. There is no retention or accountability for maintenance of such works either. Basically the solution in this area is throw money at the problem and when you run out of money threaten to close and get someone else's money to throw at it.

Basically the solution in this area is throw money at the problem and when you run out of money threaten to close and get someone else's money to throw at it.

That sounds a lot like Iowa's public school strategy. When something goes wrong or we need to increase performance, we'll just throw more money at the schools. Building new buildings and giving bad teachers more money will fix everything, right?

While many roads and bridges don't need the work, many roads and bridges do need the work. And roadways aren't the only public infrastructure, and aren't going to be the only infrastructure that needs work. That being said, I'm not going to be shedding any tears for this part of the stimulus package being axed. Communication infrastructure isn't exactly the same as a public utility, and high speed internet definitely isn't.

They might be hell bent on passing this stimulus package, but I'd like it to be as small as possible.

Funny but I didnt hear too many republicans complaining about wasting money on pork when they were in power (both Congress and the presidency).

Maybe we should stop funding via tax dollars/and stimlus the roads, power, water, etc of america. When it all starts to fall apart and drop down into the F grade(its currently D) and more bridges fall into a river we can at least hold our heads up proudly and say "at least we got rid of BIG goverment and lowered taxes!!!" Most people know, conservatives dont like anything with "green" in it. Thats fine. Personally, I think supplying your own power rather its wind, solar, water etc is much better then depending on the power company to supply it to you. If you conservatives like coal or even nuclear so much, why don't you ask to have a coal/nuclear(and nuclear plants cost so much they would likely have to be helped funded by the govt) plant built in your neighborhoood? Surely you wouldn't have a problem with that?

By the government investing in green products like solar or wind it makes it cheaper and easier to produce(and improves the tech) so that us, the comman man can more easily afford it(also making new markets, ie companies to sell and install those solar/wind). Eventually solar or wind power iwll likely be cheaper to produce and store energy then it is producing it via coal. Sadly, in America there seems to be such a huge division between the different factions that it appears that division is the greatest threat to america and not some radical muslim terrorist on the other side of the world.

Funny, I didn't hear too many democrats complaining about it either. Of course, the only time they really complained was when they were writing budgets for the boys overseas or when that group led by the republicans said we needed some more regulations on the banking industry.

Funding roads is a STATE responsibility. I know, I know, you'd love for the federal government to pay for local roads so that local government could blow even MORE money on local programs that are useless, but that's being covered by this barrel of bacon, so don't worry. I don't know what state you live in where your bridges are D grade, but I know for a fact that's not so in all of America. In Minnesota, Louisiana, I'd believe it. Thing is, that study that gave out the D grade looked at a total of what, a thousand roads? Oh man, what a great sample size. That's almost as relevant as the sample size that one whackjob group fielded in response to the FTC's good report on M Rated games being sold to children. Why did that bridge in Minnesota fall into the river? POOR MAINTENANCE BY THE STATE. Why did New Orleans flood? POOR LEVEE MAINTENANCE BY THE STATE. Newsflash; they already get federal money for these issues, they don't need more. They need to learn how to BUDGET.

I think its cute you didn't spend the time to read up on the ability of solar panes/ wind turbines to generate power. Here's a hint; its not as great as you seem to think. Wind turbines work at a maximum of 25% efficiency, and solar power, which is also far more expensive, is not too much better.

I'd love to have a nuclear power plant in my neighborhood, mainly because I'm not a slack-jawed jackass who believes that nuclear energy is the devil like many democrats in the house. You know, the ones who keep crying for more efficient cleaner energy, then turn their back on the cleanest and most efficient form available? The ones who stick to coal, which is terrible, instead of nuclear energy, which is just wonderful?

Also, my neighborhood wouldn't be able to support a Nuclear power plant given where it is and the space required, but hey, we'll ignore that for now.

You really think there aren't already companies that install solar and wind bullshit on your house? I'd like you to pull your head out of the sand and take a look around. My house in Utah has solar panels (not my choice), and has since five years ago. Just because you aren't willing to make that big a sacrifice and spend money to save the earth (hypocrite) doesn't mean its not available. You people are as bad as PETA. Oh yeah, we'll change to solar power when its affordable. Oh yeah, we'll eat soy food, we're not intentionally killing animals in harvesting the soy.

Also, what a lovely sentence at the end. You don't mention factions, but you suggest that division in America is a threat. Indeed it is. We need less division over a trillion dollars of pork, and maybe some more responsible spending that will create useful jobs instead of going into the same black holes we've thrown money down for decades.

Average efficiency of Solar Panel generators is around 23-26%, and these are the expensive ones. There are some in lab conditions that get above 30%, but that's lab conditions, and they're not even out for sale yet.

Not taking a side in this argument (though I most definately have a side), but just reinforcing a truth that I saw.

I thought that was the optimum efficiency, not the average. If I recall correctly the average for publicly available solar panels is between 15-18%. The big problem is the initial energy required for making the cells, currently it takes around 2 years for the cells to payback their initial energy costs.

Heaven forbid we create jobs by building public infrascture. That might do something horrible like stimulate the local economy or build new avenues for connecting customers and buisnesses.

*sigh* the modern republican party has utterly lost touch with economic concervatism. Job creation via public works (esp infrastructure) is one of the oldest and well established methods of stimulating an economy. It is hard to get more classic then this.

It's also very hard to get it to work. FDR's New Deal was mostly comprised of government funded infrastructure development, and it did jack shit to help the economy.

Besides, even if this measure of the bill was passed, it'd have to go through the red tape of being a government funded infrastructure developmpent project, which would slow down the process so long that it probly wouldn't get started for another 5 years or so. By that time, the job probably already would have been done by privately owned ISPs.

you can keep squaking that talking point all you like, repeating a lie does not make it true. Crack open a history book, you might learn something.

The New Deal worked. It saved Capitalism. It saved this country and it saved the World (FDR was looking ahead and used a fair portion of the New Deal money to build warships and expand the military, including setting up training camps. Camps that were needed just a few short years later when the US entered WWII).

Right, new military infrastructure? Then why exactly were most first round recruits training with flour for grenades, broomsticks for guns, and cars for tanks? Am I being sensationalist? Totally. Is the full reason behind this the point you're trying to make? Only slightly, with the addition of millions of new recruits no one saw coming.

It didn't save capitalism. It started a trend towards the destruction of said institution. Having the govenrment come in and say "I'm going to make you better, and in so doing bog you down with regulations and red tape" doesn't save capitalism. It's the death knell of it.

It didn't save the country, seeing how the market was already stabilized to a very shitty point before FDR got into office, and it remaind that same shitty point almost throughout his entire 4 term service. Again, only thing that changed was the fact that people were ok with it being at that level simply due to the fact that FDR was a great speaker.

It didn't save the world, either. As I mentioned above, once we got into WWII, we had millions of new recruits. That paltry spending he made towards the military during his terms in office before Pearl Harbour hardly caused a dent in helping all those recruits. Plus, all those warships were for naught, seeing how all the Pacific ones got blown up, and all the Atlantic ones were only strong enough to just survive against Hitler's U-boat navy. This is...until the war broke out, and that military funding is what should be thought of as being this great "world saver" much more so than the New Deal.

The thing is, I do know my history. I've looked past the highly partisan pedistol FDR was placed upon and actually look at what he accomplished, and what he accomplished was something monumental. He was able to make people feel good about their economy not doing the best. He gave them hope. He didn't fix the problem, but really that problem was beyond him to fix. There's nothing wrong with giving people hope, but there is something wrong in trying to give a man credit for something he didn't do.

they haven't lost touch. They never believed in this to begin with. They fought FDR tooth and nail over similiar programs during the New Deal. Tennese Valley Authority ring any bells? Rural Electrification?

This is tried and true stuff.

Oh, and to those parroting the right-wing "It's Socialism!" talking point, kindly define "socialism". I'm taking bets on whether or not you Ditto-heads can properly define Socialism.

Do you know who provides your internet? I'll be surprised if it's not one of those private services; you probably get good service because you're at a government-funded institution that can pay big bucks for good access from the private providers.

Shout box

Infophile: @Matt: Apparently Dan Aykroyd actually is involved. We don't know how yet, though, but he's apparently going to be in the movie in some way.08/02/2015 - 4:17am

Mattsworkname: I still hold that not having the origonal cast invovled in any way hurts this movie, and unless the 4 actresses in the lead roles can some how measure up to the comic timing of the origonal cast, i just don't see it being a success08/02/2015 - 12:46am

Mattsworkname: Mecha: regardless of what you think of it, GB 2 was a finanical success and for it time did well with audiances ,even if it wasnt as popular as the first08/02/2015 - 12:45am

MechaTama31: I think they're better off trying to do something different, than trying to be exactly the same and having every little difference held up as a shortcoming. Uncanny valley.08/01/2015 - 11:57pm

MechaTama31: Having the original cast didn't do much for... that pink-slimed atrocity which we must never speak of.08/01/2015 - 11:56pm

Mattsworkname: Andrew: If the new ghostbusters bombs, I cant help but feel it'll be cause it removed the origonal cast and changed the formula to much08/01/2015 - 8:31pm

Andrew Eisen: Not the best look but that appears to be a PKE meter hanging from McCarthy's belt.08/01/2015 - 7:34pm

Mattsworkname: You know what game is a lot of fun? rocket league. It' s a soccer game thats actually fun to play cause your A Freaking CAR!08/01/2015 - 7:02pm

Mattsworkname: Nomad colossus did a little video about it, showing the world and what can be explored in it's current form. It's worth a look, and he uses text for commentary as not to break the immerison08/01/2015 - 5:49pm

Mattsworkname: I feel some more mobility would have made it more interesting and I feel that a larger more diverse landscape with better graphiscs would help, but as a concept, it interests me08/01/2015 - 5:48pm

Andrew Eisen: Huh. I guess I'll have to check out a Let's Play to get a sense of the game.08/01/2015 - 5:47pm

Mattsworkname: It did, I found the idea of exploring a world at it's end, exploring the abandoned city of a disappeared alien race and the planets various knooks and crannies intriqued me.08/01/2015 - 5:46pm

Andrew Eisen: Did it appeal to you? If so, what did you find appealing?08/01/2015 - 5:43pm

Mattsworkname: Its an interesting concept, but it's not gonna appeal to everyone thats for sure,08/01/2015 - 5:40pm

Andrew Eisen: That sounds horrifically boring. Doesn't sound like an interesting use of its time dilation premise either. 08/01/2015 - 5:36pm

Mattsworkname: an observer , seeing this sorta frozen world and being able to explore without any restriction other then time. no enimes, no threats, just the chance to explore08/01/2015 - 5:34pm